Triple-rule-out computed tomography angiography with 256-slice computed tomography scanners: Patient-specific assessment of radiation burden and associated cancer risk

Investigative Radiology

Volumn 47, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 109-115

  Perisinakis, Kostas ^a   Seimenis, Ioannis ^b   Tzedakis, Antonis ^c   Papadakis, Antonios E ^c   Damilakis, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CRETE   (Greece)

^b Medical Diagnostic Center Ayios Therissos   (Cyprus)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF HERAKLION   (Greece)

Author keywords

coronary CT angiography; radiation exposure; radiation risk; triple rule out

Indexed keywords

256 SLICE TRIPLE RULE OUT COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY ANGIOGRAPHY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; BODY SIZE; BREAST; BREAST CANCER; CANCER RISK; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS SOFTWARE; DOSIMETRY; ESOPHAGUS; FEMALE; HEART; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LIFETIME ATTRIBUTABLE RISK; LUNG; LUNG CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PHANTOM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION DOSE DISTRIBUTION; RADIATION DOSE FRACTIONATION; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION HAZARD; RADIATION INDUCED NEOPLASM; SEX RATIO; STANDARD; VOXEL BASED MORPHOMETRY;

EID: 84855842718     PISSN: 00209996     EISSN: 15360210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0b013e31822d0cf3     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Halpern EJ. Triple-rule-out CT angiography for evaluation of acute chest pain and possible acute coronary syndrome. Radiology. 2009;252:332-345.
2. Lee HY, Yoo SM, White CS. Coronary CT angiography in emergency department patients with acute chest pain: triple rule-out protocol versus dedicated coronary CT angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25: 319-326.
3. Takakuwa KM, Halpern EJ. Evaluation of a "triple-rule-out" coronary CT angiography protocol: use of 64-section CT in low-to-moderate risk emergency department patients suspected of having acute coronary syndrome. Radiology. 2008;248:438-446.
4. Frauenfelder T, Appenzeller P, Karlo C, et al. Triple rule-out CT in the emergency department: protocols and spectrum of imaging findings. Eur Radiol. 2009;19:789-799.
5. Schroeder S, Achenbach S, Bengel F, et al. Cardiac computed tomography: indications, applications, limitations, and training requirements. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:531-556.
6. Gallagher MJ, Raff GL. Use of multislice CT for the evaluation of emergency room patients with chest pain: the so-called "triple rule-out." Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;71:92-99. (Pubitemid 351158352)
7. Shuman WP, Branch KR, May JM, et al. Whole chest 64-MDCT of emergency department patients with non-specific chest pain: radiation dose and coronary artery image quality with prospective ECG triggering versus retrospective ECG gating. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1662-1667.
8. Takakuwa KM, Halpern EJ, Gingold EL, et al. Radiation dose in a "triple rule-out" coronary CT angiography protocol of emergency department patients using 64-MDCT: the impact of ECG-based tube current modulation on age, sex, and body mass index. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:866-872.
9. Johnson TR, Nikolaou K, Becker A, et al. Dual-source CT for chest pain assessment. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:773-780.
10. Weigold WG, Olszewski ME, Walker MJ. Low-dose prospectively gated 256-slice coronary computed tomographic angiography. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2009;25(suppl II):217-230.
11. Lell M, Hinkmann F, Anders K, et al. High-pitch electrocardiogram- triggered computed tomography of the chest: initial results. Invest Radiol. 2009;44: 728-733.
12. Sommer WH, Schenzle JC, Becker CR, et al. Saving dose in triple-rule-out computed tomography examination using a high-pitch dual spiral technique. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:64-71.
13. Brenner J. Effective dose: a flawed concept that could and should be replaced. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:521-523.
14. Christner JA, Kofler JM, McCollough CH. Estimating effective dose for CT using dose-length product compared with using organ doses: consequences of adopting International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 103 or dual-energy scanning. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194: 881-889.
15. Managing patient dose from multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT). ICRP publication 102. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1-80.
16. AAPM. The Measurement, Reporting and Management of Radiation Dose in CT. College Park, MD: American Association of Physicists in Medicine, One Physics Ellipse; 2008. AAPM Report 96.
17. Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA. 2007;298:317-323. (Pubitemid 47080486)
18. Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low levels of Ionizing Radiation; Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies. Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press; 2006.
19. Deak P, van Straten M, Shrimpton PC, et al. Validation of a Monte Carlo tool for patient-specific dose simulations in multi-slice computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:759-772.
20. Myronakis M, Perisinakis K, Tzedakis AG, et al. Evaluation of a patientspecific Monte Carlo software for CT dosimetry. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2009;133:248-255.
21. van Straten M, Deak P, Shrimpton PC, et al. The effect of angular and longitudinal tube current modulations on the estimation of organ and effective doses in X-ray computed tomography. Med Phys. 2009;36:4881-4889.
22. Kyriakou Y, Deak P, Langner O, et al. Concepts for dose determination in flat-detector CT. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53:3551-3366.
23. Damilakis J, Perisinakis K, Tzedakis A, et al. Radiation dose to the conceptus from multidetector CT during early gestation: a method that allows for variation in maternal body size and conceptus position. Radiology. 2010;257: 483-489.
24. Perisinakis K, Seimenis I, Tzedakis A, et al. Individualized assessment of radiation dose in patients undergoing coronary computed tomographic angiography with 256-slice scanning. Circulation. 2010;122:2394-2402.
25. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP. 2007;37:1-332.
26. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2007. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute; 2010. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975-2007/.
27. Deak P, Smal Y, Kalender W. Multisection CT protocols: sex and agespecific conversion factors used to determine effective dose from dose-length product. Radiology. 2010;257:158-166.
28. Caoili EM, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, et al. Medical decision making regarding computed tomographic radiation dose and associated risk: the patient's perspective. Arch Intern Med. 2010;169:1069-1071.
29. Mitka M. Cardiac CT cancer risks less than feared? JAMA. 2009;301:367.
30. Smith-Bendman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:2078-2086.
31. Gerber TC, Kontos MC, Kantor B. Emergency department assessment of acute-onset chest pain: contemporary approaches and their consequences. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85:309-313.
32. Krissak R, Henzler T, Prechel A, et al. Triple-rule-out dual-source CT angiography of patients with acute chest pain: dose reduction potential of 100 kV scanning. Eur J Radiol. 2010:doi:10.1016/j.jerad.2010.11.021.
33. Baumueller S, Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, et al. Computed tomography of the lung in the high-pitch mode: is breath holding still required? Invest Radiol. 2011;46:240-245.
34. Brix G, Lechel U, Petersheim M, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced CT studies: balancing patient exposure and image noise. Invest Radiol. 2011;46: 64-70.
35. Lell MM, May M, Deak P, et al. High-pitch spiral computed tomography: effect on image quality and radiation dose in pediatric chest computed tomography. Invest Radiol. 2011;46:116-123.
36. Schenzle JC, Sommer WH, Neumaier K, et al. Dual energy CT of the chest: how about the dose? Invest Radiol. 2010;45:347-353.
37. Goetti R, Leschka S, Baumuller S, et al. Low dose high-pitch spiral acquisition 128-slice dual-source computed tomography for the evaluation of coronary artery bypass graft patency. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:324-330.
38. Kuefner MA, Hinkmann FM, Alibek S, et al. Reduction of X-ray induced DNA double-strand breaks in blood lymphocytes during coronary CT angiography using high-pitch spiral data acquisition with prospective ECGtriggering. Invest Radiol. 2010;45:182-187.
39. Leipsic J, Labounty TM, Heilbron B, et al. Estimated radiation dose reduction using adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction in coronary CT angiography: the ERASIR study. Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195:655-660.
40. Efstathopoulos EP, Kelekis NL, Pantos I, et al. Reduction of estimated radiation dose and associated patient risk with prospective ECG-gated 256-slice CT coronary angiography. Phys Med Biol. 2009;54:5209-5222.
41. Alkadhi H, Stolzmann P, Desbiolles L, et al. Low-dose, 128-slice, dualsource CT coronary angiography: accuracy and radiation dose of the highpitch and the step-and-shoot mode. Heart. 2010;96:933-938.
42. Achenbach S, Marwan M, Ropers D, et al. Coronary computed tomography angiography with a consistent dose below 1 mSv using prospectively electrocardiogram-triggered high-pitch spiral acquisition. Eur Heart J. 2010;31: 340-346.
43. Einstein AJ, Elliston CD, Arai AE, et al. Radiation dose from single-heartbeat coronary CT angiography performed with a 320-detector row volume scanner. Radiology. 2010;254:698-706.